I see, so you insist on beating a dead horse with long incomprehensible posts. I will waste no more of my time on Atwill’s debunked Josephus/Flavian thesis.

Again, if you actually READ Acharya's work instead of making snide remarks and false assumptions, you'll see that Atwill's thesis is simply WRONG. The correspondences between Josephus and the gospels reveal that the gospel writers used Josephus. That scholarship's been around for centuries, as someone who actually studied the subject would know.

For example, the connection between Josephus and Luke has been analyzed extensively by Dr. G.J. Goldberg, who - unlike Atwill - analyzed the original GREEK:

Since the canonical gospels as we have them don't make their appearance in the literary record until the end of the second century, it is not possible that Josephus had anything whatsoever to do with them.

1st post was my own work (based in part on Joe's book) and 2nd post was from my unofficial website (largely based on Joe's book). It's not meant to be incomprehensible, but very easy for laymen to compare and see the patterns without having the wool pulled over their eyes by the so called experts. Unfortunately, this forum does not allow tables or multiple indentations outside of code tags, so this makes it difficult for me to present with correct spacing and colour-coding.

Again, if you actually READ Acharya's work instead of making snide remarks and false assumptions, you'll see that Atwill's thesis is simply WRONG. The correspondences between Josephus and the gospels reveal that the gospel writers used Josephus. That scholarship's been around for centuries, as someone who actually studied the subject would know.

For example, the connection between Josephus and Luke has been analyzed extensively by Dr. G.J. Goldberg, who - unlike Atwill - analyzed the original GREEK:

Since the canonical gospels as we have them don't make their appearance in the literary record until the end of the second century, it is not possible that Josephus had anything whatsoever to do with them.

I would encourage your readers to ignore the secondary sources for now, but have a look at the primary sources I've quoted on the previous page of this topic showing all the clear parallels (40+ in sequence) that exist between the gospels and Josephus. The gospel writers didn't simply "use" Josephus; they built up an entire system based around both works, proving a common source. With such overwhelming evidence there is no need to call upon the authority of the so called experts who are either unaware that a system exists (and are simply looking at isolated parallels), or are just out to cause deception, i.e. Carrier.

I guess you don't know what a primary or secondary source is and apparently, neither does Atwill and gang. What Dr. Goldberg did is an actual scientific endeavor, unlike what Atwill and company has done. What part of that do you not understand?

Quote:

wool pulled over their eyes by the so called experts

That's quite a conspiracy theory you've got going. The problem is people who don't know what they're talking about (Atwill & co.).

Discussion here seems to be concentrated on a few phrases. Not only are few parallels quoted, but that scholar was far off from even noticing any system - has little bearing on my posts on the previous page of this topic. Seems he is mostly looking at completely different data even. Totally irrelevant - like Chris White's "straw man" debunk video. Remember, Atwill's discovery is based on at least 40 pieces of satire derived from 40+ parallels occuring sequentially in a system. Faulty translations cannot create 40 pieces of satire because the satire comes from the actual typological information content contained within the combined version of the gospels and Josephus. And the satire/parallels work intertextually/interactively, further pointing to a common designer instead of accidental mistakes with translation from Greek to English.

No conspiracy! Carrier is obviously narcissistic. First result from Google:http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ful ... narcissist"People high in narcissism tend to deceive themselves and others. When they take these tests, they continue to lie. "Plenty more information online re: how people like Carrier work to manipulate and deceive others...

There was another link somewhere about how Narcissists (Carrier shows all the signs) are known to under-perform at their jobs, hence Richard is quite poor at his subject because he's pretty much living in his own fantasy world.

Proof of Joseph Atwill's Flavian invention of Christianity is divided into 3 parts (only Part 1 and a bit of Part 2 is covered previous page):1) Proof that one book is based on another, a common source, or a lost third source2) Proof that the parallels were designed for presenting satire and historical information beyond the surface level narration3) Proof that the books are actually of a common Flavian source (eliminating the other two possibilities)

1) Do you at least agree from the analysis that the gospels are based heavily on Josephus’ Wars of the Jews or vice versa? If you agree a designer is at work then I’ll proceed with parts (2) and (3), otherwise say if you believe these parallels exist by chance or coincidence? Note that the parallels are all in sequence.

I would encourage your readers to ignore the secondary sources for now

Who are you, REALLY? What are your qualifications and credentials? You've provided absolutely no reason to pretend to be any type of authority on the subject from what I've seen thus far. You fail to grasp even the most basic facts in this case, as the canonical gospels as we have them don't make their appearance in the literary record until the end of the second century, it is not possible that Josephus had anything whatsoever to do with them. It's just such a bogus claim that's easily debunked - what part of that do you not understand?

The Goldberg material is only a small part of the analysis of the Greek. The comparisons between Josephus and gospels have been made for CENTURIES. There's a whole body of literature showing some sort of dependence, and since it's clear the canonical gospels did not exist until the end of the second century, the writers obviously used Josephus. There is no "common source." Atwill just made that up in order to push his theory. Again, Atwill needs to admit the error and retract his claims if he ever wants to regain his credibility. If that's even possible at this point.

Josephus had nothing to do with writing the gospels, other than as a source of "history" for them. If you want to know the origins of how Christianity was created, you really should read Acharya's books, which are FULL of primary sources.

gilius2k14 wrote:

very easy for laymen to compare and see the patterns without having the wool pulled over their eyes by the so called experts.

gilius2k14 wrote:

No conspiracy! Carrier is obviously narcissistic.

You're not listening to anything I've said so far at all. I refuse to waste any more of my time on this already debunked subject. Again, we've got no love for Carrier around here, Carrier is a narcissist with an ego the size of a bus, but Atwill is in error and there's nothing that can be done about that fact because the evidence does not support his claims.

It's amateurs who have no clue what they're talking about claiming experts are pulling the wool over anybody's eyes here - that puts an end to the discussion right there with such bogus nonsense. I'll give you one last chance to prove the canonical gospels were written during Josephus's time before I lock this thread. You're just a troll at this point.

I would encourage your readers to ignore the secondary sources for now

Who are you, REALLY? What are your qualifications and credentials? You've provided absolutely no reason to pretend to be any type of authority on the subject from what I've seen thus far. You fail to grasp even the most basic facts in this case, as the canonical gospels as we have them don't make their appearance in the literary record until the end of the second century, it is not possible that Josephus had anything whatsoever to do with them.

The Goldberg material is only a small part of the analysis of the Greek. The comparisons between Josephus and gospels have been made for CENTURIES. There's a whole body of literature showing some sort of dependence, and since it's clear the canonical gospels did not exist until the end of the second century, the writers obviously used Josephus. There is no "common source." Atwill's just made that up in order to push his theory.

Josephus had nothing to do with writing the gospels, other than as a source of "history" for them. If you want to know the origins of how Christianity was created, you really should read Acharya's books, which are FULL of primary sources.

I'm just an average person like everyone else, but I don't need to feel *special* because I don't suffer from feelings of emptiness, boredom or worthlessness like all the narcs we're surrounded by who need their ego fed. It doesn't matter about qualifications/credentials - anyone can know the Flavians invented Christianity by simply understanding patterns, statistical probability and simultaneous equations in mathematics. Therefore the only requirement is having passed an IQ test. It doesn't matter when evidence of the gospels first appeared in this case since the designer provides us with all the information we need about their composition, including who the authors were: Tiberius Julius Alexander, Titus, and Bernice (Domitian also - possibly for Acts or other NT books - Joe's next book should have more info). By reading typology you are gaining additional information to the surface level narration. I can give you an example to prove that, which I made up myself about North Korea.

Joseph Atwill even quotes historians who have noticed things between the gospels and Josephus, but nobody knew there was a parallel system embedded by the actual inventors of Christianity as resolving them shows.

I appreciate Acharya's work on Christ in Egypt and Zeitgeist, but she was WRONG to post Christ White's straw man debunk video because it has no bearing on any evidence that Atwill is bringing to the table.

I appreciate Acharya's work on Christ in Egypt and Zeitgeist, but she was WRONG to post Christ White's straw man debunk video because it has no bearing on any evidence that Atwill is bringing to the table.

I don't care about Chris White - it just shows had pathetically bad these claims are by Atwill and company when a fundamentalist Christian extremist who knows very little about the subject and knows no Greek can show Atwill wrong. That is Atwill's problem, NOT OURS.

gilius2k14 wrote:

I'm just an average person like everyone else, but I don't need to feel *special* because I don't suffer from feelings of emptiness, boredom or worthlessness like all the narcs we're surrounded by who need their ego fed. It doesn't matter about qualifications/credentials - anyone can know the Flavians invented Christianity by simply understanding patterns, statistical probability and simultaneous equations in mathematics. Therefore the only requirement is having passed an IQ test. It doesn't matter when evidence of the gospels first appeared in this case since the designer provides us with all the information we need about their composition, including who the authors were: Tiberius Julius Alexander, Titus, and Bernice (Domitian also - possibly for Acts or other NT books - Joe's next book should have more info). By reading typology you are gaining additional information to the surface level narration. I can give you an example to prove that, which I made up myself about North Korea.

Joseph Atwill even quotes historians who have noticed things between the gospels and Josephus, but nobody knew there was a parallel system embedded by the actual inventors of Christianity as resolving them shows.

This has to do with a very serious lack of credible evidence to substantiate Atwill's 'Josephus/Flavian Thesis' conclusions. It appears you don't have the qualifications or experience to understand the difference. We have no interest in credentialism around here but, qualifications and credentials do matter when your logic is easily proven so embarrassingly wrong in this case. You've provided absolutely nothing to change that. An IQ test does not make an expert out of anyone and what does it say when someone with no qualifications can just make up typology about North Korea? Those types of comments do more harm to your position that good.

gilius2k14 wrote:

It doesn't matter when evidence of the gospels first appeared

Yes, it seriously does and until you and Atwill understand that point and address it specifically without the need for all your deflections and distractions, you are wasting everybody's time.

Joseph Atwill has put a few pieces of the puzzle together and should have left it at that, but, his 'Josephus/Flavian Thesis' conclusion is an obvious error to all who know the subject matter. Atwill is beating a dead horse here because the credible evidence proves his conclusion wrong. You have yet to provide anything to change that fact and you never will because I see no reason to believe that you even understand it.

Acharya's comment below is the Achilles heel to Atwill's Josephus/Flavian thesis for which both you and Atwill fail to address- in fact Atwill avoids it like the plague. It's probably why it was edited out of the DVD - because he has no response to it as it debunks Atwill's 'Josephus/Flavian Thesis' conclusion. Since the canonical gospels as we have them don't make their appearance in the literary record until the end of the second century, it is not possible that Josephus had anything whatsoever to do with them. This is why you fail.

Atwill puts the cart before the horse and it's so blatantly obvious that everybody who knows the subject matter sees it, except Atwill and company. It's truly embarrassing to watch people fail to grasp that because in doing so, they inadvertently expose their lack of experience on the subject. Atwill is asking people with 20 and 30 years experience on this subject to agree with something they already know to be false and no chance of being true. You and Atwill are trying to push a boulder up a mountain.

It does not appear that you've even read Acharya's blog on the subject. Please do not respond again until you've read the entire blog.

Quote:

"Please note that I do not concur with Atwill’s Josephus/Flavian thesis vis-a-vis the origin of the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There remains no clear, scientific evidence for the emergence of the canonical gospels as we have them until the end of the second century, when they suddenly burst onto the scene with a slew of commentary...."

I wouldn't want to be indoctrinated with any qualifications left over from the Catholic School system because it only provides you with knowledge that the government wants you to know, including plenty of false histories and crippling your ability to rely on your own brain for intuition. And they end up wasting part of your life and pocketing the tuition fees. Your actual intelligence can only get worse - not better - through any indoctrination program. I recommend doing something else like playing an old computer game from 20 years ago to stimulate your brain in the right way.

Atwill's evidence is the parallels and satire (40+ each) together with additional information derived from solving the parallels. You contradict this fact by saying he has no credible evidence, yet you haven't even looked at it on the previous page other than with peripheral vision for instant out of hand dismissal. How can you disprove a system of 80+ elements appearing in a sequencial pattern and working together intertextually/interactively? You can't because it's a mathematical impossibility. Any perceived harm done to "my position" is only a reflection of other people's lack of free independent thinking and ability to evaluate evidence themselves without having to judge somebody else's capacity to provide them with truth.

The North Korean example is just to demonstrate the power of typology.

The physical evidence of the gospels first appearing in, say, the 2nd century - whose origins are lost to the ravages of time - is secondary to evidence based on the identity of the original authors. If you have primary evidence relating to the origin then you don't need to look at secondary evidence relating to the first appearance - extrabiblical or otherwise.

Atwill has done more than put a few pieces of the puzzle together. He has provided overwhelming data from simply understanding that the books are of the typological genre of literature, and comparing them.

You've demonstrated you're not a truthseeker by the way you like to devalue everything and everyone without looking at the evidence that Joe brings to the table for which I've presented on the previous page, condensed.

OK, let's read the blog you've provided a link for since I've just got it to work for the first time:

Quote:

Rather than some newly discovered confessional document, I’m imagining Joe’s found a “pun” that only works in English in a text we already know about

Only one pun? I told you: he's found more than 40 pieces of satire that cannot be generated from faulty translations.

Next: a couple of external links that I've already read.

Quote:

Here is an hour-long DVD of a discussion I had with Joe Atwill, author of Caesar’s Messiah. I haven’t actually watched it, but my recollection that it is contains important information

I've only watched the short version myself... but I may one day purchase the full version.

Quote:

Please note that I do not concur with Atwill’s Josephus/Flavian thesis vis-a-vis the origin of the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There remains no clear, scientific evidence for the emergence of the canonical gospels as we have them until the end of the second century, when they suddenly burst onto the scene with a slew of commentary

As I stated above Joe's evidence doesn't work the same way as physical, archaeological, or even literary evidence (in terms of surface narration). Joe's evidence comes from spotting patterns and mathematically solving connundrums between parallels intertextually/interactively via the underlining framework, revealing an additional layer of information.

Next: discussion about the DVD.

Quote:

One clarification: I do concur that Christianity was created significantly for political reasons, but there is no scientific evidence that the canonical gospels were written by any Flavians, whether Josephus or otherwise, as they do not emerge clearly in the historical record until the last half of the second century.

The evidence is mathematical problem solving based on observable patterns that reveals a designer together with their additional layers of information they wanted to inform posterity about through their creation of Christianity and encounter with the Jews and other religious fools.

Quote:

without even having read it.

So she's another one who hasn't read it?

Next: previous emperors and their divinity discussed. Also, borrowed ideas used for the bible. Very valid.

Quote:

As concerns my remarks to Joe Atwill about his piece of the Christianity puzzle, when/if I have time, I may do a detailed analysis of the aspects of the Vespasian/Titus story that may have been utilized to flesh out the historical framework of the gospel tale, such as the placing of it in Galilee, mainly (except for in the Gospel of John), with the focus on the cities of Capernaum, Chorazin, Bethsaida, etc.

Good, sounds promising.

Quote:

However, it is possible that some of these city-names are, like much of the rest of the gospel story, midrash based on Old Testament scriptures. This part of the mythicist position still needs to be worked out in detail, as does the role of the Flavians in the Chrestos cult of the late first century, which appears to be the real contribution of this faction to the Christian effort.

That can easily be verified since there's plenty of evidence for Roman geography that Richard Carrier didn't have a clue about even though he has a PHD in Ancient History. Does he even have a copy of the Barrington Atlas or book about the Peutinger map or Antonine itineraries? Joe has already done the research into the Flavians and the first popes, saints etc.

Next: some good info about the Flavians.

Finally:

Quote:

Regarding the overall thesis, therefore, a relatively small percentage of the Titus biography would have been used in the creation of the gospel story, but the Flavians, including Josephus, did not compose the canonical gospels as we have them

One observation followed by a blind assumption - without looking at Atwill's evidence or reading his book or even putting forward an argument for reaching such conclusive dismissal. Just because her evidence is from the 2nd secondary it doesn't mean there isn't earlier evidence, but Joe has found it. And that's the end of the article! BTW, the observation can be explained simply by the fact that the history book was the larger work of the Flavians with the smaller gospels composed on the back of Wars of the Jews to big up Titus and provide typological information akin to a DVD extra.

I'll finish off with an example of typology I created to demonstrate the literary power. You just need to know basic geographical information about North Korea and native customs (same thing the gospel readers would have known about Judea)

MOVIE A

16:00 - A Westerner travels to North Korea and is wearing factor 3 sun cream33:00 - The Westerner takes off a pair of trousers62:00 - The Westerner walks past a department store and sees luxuries73:00 - The Westerner is told by the tour guide about the leaders of the country84:00 - The Westerner travels back to the US

MOVIE B

16:00 - A native visits a capital city and sees 3 giant posters of men33:00 - The native is told by a police officer to change one item of their clothing62:00 - The native enters a shop but is told nothing is for sale to anyone but they are only there for show, for sake of the foreign media.73:00 - The native makes a gibe about one of the men in the posters84:00 - The native is not allowed to return home and is instead taken to a prison camp

What does this tell you about:

1) The country that the native is in?

2) The sex of the westerner?

3) Trousers in North Korea?

4) Who are the men in the posters?

5) What is the name of the city?

6) Did the westerner buy any luxuries?

7) What happens to those who oppose the regime?

Is North Korea really a nice place to go?

9) What does it tell you about someone who watches only MOVIE A but not MOVIE B?

This is how much additional information (subtext) can be gleaned from such a short text and understanding the context.

The point is: it seems like the westerner is on vacation in a nice country somewhere, but this is not true. Don't just read the bible, but read other books also to find out the truth.

You want ultimate proof of the Flavian Invention of Christianity, but there's no shortcut to reading the book other than the 3 part proof I am offering you - without having to buy the book or do too much reading yourself. However, like I said, you haven't demonstrated to me you are a truth seeker without any agenda nor have you evaluated the 40 parallels or reached any conclusion about that, nor read the satire or wondered how that is derived exactly (or how you go from parallels to satire or from part 1 to part 2). Therefore, I'll wait until someone else replies back who does want to make the effort or shows enough interest - if the topic doesn't get locked - before I finish presenting the proof, otherwise I'm just wasting my time if nobody bothers reading and doing a bit of basic analysis. Or you can visit my website any time for complete documentation on parts 1 and 2 with the first of the smoking guns of part 3 (though it's presented as 15 pages instead of 3 parts with 10 pages completed so far):

"I wouldn't want to be indoctrinated with any qualifications left over from the Catholic School system because it only provides you with knowledge that the government wants you to know, including plenty of false histories and crippling your ability to rely on your own brain for intuition."

Just more conspiracy nonsense with zero valid evidence to back it up. The Catholics here in the US often have one of the better education systems (until they get into theology), which may partly explain why we have so many Catholics on the Supreme Court. Stop coming in here and making false claims that have nothing to do with the topic at hand - it's just another deflection and red flag against your credibility.

gilius2k14 wrote:

"Atwill's evidence is the parallels and satire (40+ each) together with additional information derived from solving the parallels. You contradict this fact by saying he has no credible evidence, yet you haven't even looked at it on the previous page other than with peripheral vision for instant out of hand dismissal. How can you disprove a system of 80+ elements appearing in a sequencial pattern and working together intertextually/interactively? You can't because it's a mathematical impossibility.

No, you STILL don't understand what's going on here at all. The problem isn't Atwill's list of 40 parallels, it's his Josephus/Flavian thesis conclusion that Josephus/Flavians wrote the gospels. That claim is provably false as I've made categorically clear to you in nearly every post now. You still just can't seem to grasp that fact and that's why you fail and will continue to fail. If valid evidence were in support of Atwill's Josephus/Flavian thesis we would be on board but, we cannot, in good faith, concede to what we already know for a fact to be false.

gilius2k14 wrote:

"Any perceived harm done to "my position" is only a reflection of other people's lack of free independent thinking and ability to evaluate evidence themselves without having to judge somebody else's capacity to provide them with truth."

No it is not, you should follow your own advice. Your position fails specifically due to the fact that you rigidly refuse to examine credible evidence to the contrary displaying your very own "lack of free independent thinking and ability to evaluate evidence."

Do not blame everybody else for your own blind spots based in biases and ignorance large enough to drive a truck through and everybody who's quite familiar with the subject matter can see that except you and Atwill and company. When Atwill has dealt with the evidence that proves his main thesis wrong, then, maybe we'll have something interesting to discuss. Until then, not. Like Jerry Russell over at Carrier's blog, you've made Atwill's arguments worse here. You've inadvertently helped me expose the Achilles heel to Atwill's Josephus/Flavian thesis. Again, Atwill needs to admit the error and retract his Josephus/Flavian thesis conclusion if he ever wants to regain his credibility.

Again, Acharya still considers Atwill and company friends, of course, and some of Atwill's claims may be supported by the evidence but, Atwill's 'Josephus/Flavian thesis' that Josephus and the Flavians wrote the gospels is a confused conclusion that is easily falsified by valid evidence to the contrary. This is a huge obstacle for Atwill to over-come but, until he does provide a credible response to it, his thesis remains debunked. I don't know how many different ways I can explain this point to make it categorically clear.

gilius2k14 wrote:

"without even having read it."

So she's another one who hasn't read it?

LOL, the full context of that:

"I do not go around smearing and sullying the reputation of other scholars and mythicists with calumny and libel, as others have done to me, mendaciously and dishonestly pretending to be experts on my work without even having read it."

Instead of dishonest quote-mining and twisting her comments into something completely different to suit your agenda, why can't you just be straight up honest and address the actual criticism and evidence to the contrary? It's just another red flag. All you've offered thus far have been distraction fallacies that really look like you simply cannot honestly counter the critique.

BTW, Acharya has read Atwill's Caesar's Messiah, completely and thoroughly. Atwill himself sent it to her long ago. She even visited with Atwill, his wife and other friends during the taping of the DVD, obviously. Did you not notice that Acharya is in the DVD speaking with Atwill ABOUT HIS BOOK?! She's saying the complete opposite of what you are trying to claim, that, unlike these other liars who pretend to be experts without having read her work, she actually HAS read Atwill's book.

Quote:

"One observation followed by a blind assumption - without looking at Atwill's evidence or reading his book or even putting forward an argument for reaching such conclusive dismissal."

LOL, you are in complete denial and have no idea what you're talking about. You have failed miserably to address the quote from Acharya.

Acharya's quote below still remains to be the Achilles heel to Atwill's Josephus/Flavian thesis for which both you and Atwill fail to address- in fact Atwill avoids it like the plague. It's probably why it was edited out of the DVD - because he has no response to it as it debunks Atwill's 'Josephus/Flavian Thesis' conclusion. Since the canonical gospels as we have them don't make their appearance in the literary record until the end of the second century, it is not possible that Josephus had anything whatsoever to do with them. What part of that do you not understand?

Quote:

"Please note that I do not concur with Atwill’s Josephus/Flavian thesis vis-a-vis the origin of the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There remains no clear, scientific evidence for the emergence of the canonical gospels as we have them until the end of the second century, when they suddenly burst onto the scene with a slew of commentary...."

No point wasting any more time with you on this issue. Find another forum for this discussion as all you're doing here is wasting our time. Perhaps, one day after much studying you will finally understand.

I've locked this thread temporarily due to the utter dishonesty being displayed here.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum